What this article is proposing is an even more vintage look at the American passenger train. And that's OK.
What the article is suggesting is a return to the long lost local. These were slowly bumped off long before Amtrak took over leaving only the first class limiteds. The local day train fell victim to improved highways. But our highways are crowded. So we need these little local short runs once more.
Amtrak *isn't* "laying the groundwork for more of the nostalgic, transcontinental train services that have held passenger rail back for decades". There's a reason why the study is being done by the FRA and is out of Amtrak's hands entirely.
Also most of the passengers on long-distance trains are riding the train to go somewhere, they aren't riding it for the sake of riding it. And this article ignores the political situation around funding.
Thanks for your comment. I used Amtrak as shorthand in the title and the lede, since it's a recognizable entity that most people are familiar with. I explain later on that the FRA is carrying out the study, and that there's a long way to go before Amtrak debuts any of these routes. I probably could have been more clear about the administrative division of responsibilities.
I don't think I ignored the political situation. Towards the end, I describe how there are cases where long distance routes are more politically expedient.
I appreciate that long-distance trains have political advantages, and are a transportation lifeline for many, I stand by the central claim in the piece that most riders in most regions would be far better served by shorter, more frequent lines. Rail advocates and fans should be honest about the myriad downsides of long-distance service.
"I probably could have been more clear about the administrative division of responsibilities."
The article still implies that Amtrak have made a change of position on long-distance services, when they really haven't.
"I stand by the central claim in the piece that most riders in most regions would be far better served by shorter, more frequent lines. Rail advocates and fans should be honest about the myriad downsides of long-distance service."
And I think rail advocates need to understand how criticisms they make will be used by those opposed to all passenger rail, and that in the current political climate for many major cities it is long-distance trains or no trains.
The political climate is the status quo. Advocating for the far more logical adding trains on corridors is not going to the lead to the end of passenger trains in the US. Quite the opposite.
The point is that many states are totally uninterested in funding corridor service, and so long-distance trains are the only hope of getting passenger rail to them.
What this article is proposing is an even more vintage look at the American passenger train. And that's OK.
What the article is suggesting is a return to the long lost local. These were slowly bumped off long before Amtrak took over leaving only the first class limiteds. The local day train fell victim to improved highways. But our highways are crowded. So we need these little local short runs once more.
Terrific article, Ben! I hope the powers that be read it and learn. Thank you.
Thanks so much, Sara!
Amtrak *isn't* "laying the groundwork for more of the nostalgic, transcontinental train services that have held passenger rail back for decades". There's a reason why the study is being done by the FRA and is out of Amtrak's hands entirely.
Also most of the passengers on long-distance trains are riding the train to go somewhere, they aren't riding it for the sake of riding it. And this article ignores the political situation around funding.
Thanks for your comment. I used Amtrak as shorthand in the title and the lede, since it's a recognizable entity that most people are familiar with. I explain later on that the FRA is carrying out the study, and that there's a long way to go before Amtrak debuts any of these routes. I probably could have been more clear about the administrative division of responsibilities.
I don't think I ignored the political situation. Towards the end, I describe how there are cases where long distance routes are more politically expedient.
I appreciate that long-distance trains have political advantages, and are a transportation lifeline for many, I stand by the central claim in the piece that most riders in most regions would be far better served by shorter, more frequent lines. Rail advocates and fans should be honest about the myriad downsides of long-distance service.
"I probably could have been more clear about the administrative division of responsibilities."
The article still implies that Amtrak have made a change of position on long-distance services, when they really haven't.
"I stand by the central claim in the piece that most riders in most regions would be far better served by shorter, more frequent lines. Rail advocates and fans should be honest about the myriad downsides of long-distance service."
And I think rail advocates need to understand how criticisms they make will be used by those opposed to all passenger rail, and that in the current political climate for many major cities it is long-distance trains or no trains.
The political climate is the status quo. Advocating for the far more logical adding trains on corridors is not going to the lead to the end of passenger trains in the US. Quite the opposite.
The point is that many states are totally uninterested in funding corridor service, and so long-distance trains are the only hope of getting passenger rail to them.